IN MEMORY OF JACK STRAWS STINT AS ANTI CORRUPTION CHAMPION

13 comments:

I would like you to provide for me, under Freedom of Information,the number of reported cases of Social workers who have committedperjury of documents presented to secret Family Courts in Cumbria?

In 2003, Mr Michael Hill, who works as Social Worker in Kendal wasreported for perjury of documents presented to the Family Court, inthe case of Jade Astrid Taylor Jan 2003 to September 2003.

It seems to be common practice for social workers to commitperjury, to sway the decision of the Secret family Courts Judge infavour of the Local authority forced adoption agenda.

This is unlawful behavior, and even though I have reported thiscrime, to the police, no action has been taken to discipline MrHill. The police have failed to investigate and I have reason tobelieve that Civil Servants seem to be above the law.

I acknowledge receipt of your email requesting a review of the handling ofyour recent Freedom of Information request, ref. FOI 2009-387. I shalllook into the matter on your behalf and contact you again as soon as Ihave completed my review.

I note that your original FOI request was signed "Lorna Stewart". ShouldI respond to Lorna Stewart or to yourself?

Yours sincerely,

Jim GrisenthwaiteHead of CultureAdult and Cultural Services DirectorateCumbria County Council The Castle CARLISLE CA3 8UR

ivanataylor left an annotation (24 November 2009) A letter has just come to me, dated the 12 November 2009 from Bridget Prentice MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

It is a response to my lobbying MP's re corruption in the Secret Family Court System. She is responding to David Gauke MP the Ref is MC257983

The letter reads as follows.

Dear David

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor , my address is here omitted.

thank you for your letter of 14 October to Jack Straw, about social services and openness in the family courts. I am replying as the Minister responsible for the family justice system in England and Wales. You refer to an earlier letter which my officials have not been able to trace, but I apologise for the delay in responding to you nonetheless.

I am very sorry for the experience that Mrs Stewart-Taylor has had with social services and the family courts regarding her grandchild. In order to preserve the principle of judicial independence, I cannot give opinion on a specific case but I hope that she will find the following general comments helpful.

It has, since 1991, been the policy of successive governments, as set out in legislation, that children should live with their parents wherever possible and that services should be provided to children in need and their families to enable this to happen.

The child protection system is designed to identify families who may be vulnerable and seeks to offer help at an early stage in order to enable children to remain in their family. Social workers must work closely with parents to identify and evidence where change or improvement is necessary in order to enable a family to stay together.

I assure Mrs Stewart-Taylor that local authorities are not given financial incentives to increase the number of children in care or remove children from care of their parents in order for them to be adopted. The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and the decision to make a care order is taken by the courts. In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered all the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

where the court makes an order placing a child in the care of a local authority, the authority will continue to work with the family with a view to the child returning home. Happily, the vast majority of children are returned to their parents. for those children who cannot return home to their parents, they have the right to have alternative plans considered to provide them with a permanent home; adoption is only one of the available options of providing this.

The final decision on whether a child should be adopted rests with the courts. Before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long term basis. where the parents/guardians have not given their consent, but it may only do so in limited circumstances. The court would have to be satisfied that the parent could not be found or is incapable of giving consent, or that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.

The Government does not have, and has never had, a national target to increase the number of children being taken into care. the target on adoption reflected the Government's desire to reverse a long-term decline in the number of children already in care finding a permanent home through adoption. The adoption target ended in March 2006. Similarly, the Government does not set adoption targets for local authorities, although authorities themselves may choose to develop targets with central Government through the Local area Agreement/Local Public service agreement process.

Mrs Stewart-Taylor is also concerned about the ability of parents or families to speak out about their case. The extent to which a parent, child or the media can publish information about individual children is complex and determined by a number of different aspects of legislation. The issue is the need to balance the rights of children to privacy, with the rights of other parties, and those of the media, in relation to freedom of expression.

The government has already taken some action to make family proceedings more open- the media can attend most proceedings, and the rules about disclosure of information have been amended to make it easier for people to seek the help and support they need.

these changes do not yet apply to adoption cases.Adoption is the most difficult and life changing decision a family court can make and needs special consideration. There are concerns that the identity of children and adoptive parents might be exposed, particularly in small rural populations or ethnic community areas. we are therefore considering, along with people most involved in adoption work, how best that these proceedings can be made more open but alongside legislation to ensure that identities are protected.

We will also introduce new legislation that will put the reporting and admission regime for all tiers of family court on the same foundation as that for youth courts. This will allow the media to report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the families involved. The Government will revise the law on reporting restrictions as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I hope that this letter is helpful. I am enclosing a copy for you to forward to Mrs Stewart-Taylor, should you wish to do so.

Kind regards

Bridget

BRIDGET PRENTICE

I would be interested in what anyone thinks about this. It has taken 6 years to get to here. I have been lobbying every MP for many years, repeatedly and finally we get this response.??

Mr Yeo called on the government to change the adoption law An MP has criticised the the way Suffolk County Council handles children in adoption cases.

Conservative MP for Suffolk South Tim Yeo led an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday night on the adoption of very young children.

He said the manner in which the council put newborns up for adoption was "tantamount to child kidnapping".

Suffolk County Council said they were committed to protecting vulnerable people as a priority.

Mr Yeo said he had been contacted by a number of constituents who were concerned about the number of, and the way in which, young children were removed from families.

He referred to a particular case and said social workers had been so keen to remove the child that he claimed they later changed the facts of the case to justify their actions.

Click to playClick to playTim Yeo in the House of Commons: From BBC Democracy Live"It is a flagrant breach of justice," Mr Yeo told the House.

"They would have had more legal rights and treated more humanely if they had murdered their own child."

Director of children and young people's services for the council, Simon White, said: "The overall effectiveness of our childrens' services has been graded by Ofsted as good overall and outstanding in relation to adoption support and organisational management.

"Our highly trained, professional staff are very mindful of the particular circumstances of each case.

"But ultimately it is the welfare of the child or children which must be safeguarded. We reject any accusation otherwise."

Mr Yeo called for a change in the law relating to the adoption process of babies.

Minister for children, school and families Diana Johnson said a child could not be put up for adoption without a court believing the child is, or would be, at serious risk remaining where they were.